Somewhat before (but not completely before) the crazy 24/7 internet-news-cycle started, I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal about an activity I partici

Somewhat before (but not completely before) the crazy 24/7 internet-news-cycle started, I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal about an activity I participated in. For about two days after it was published, I got calls from various lesser-known news outlets, and in the end, I did two more interviews, one with a local television station, and one with a very small radio talk show. I didn't feel that any of the three organizations got the nuances and details right in their final stories. The WSJ got the big picture mostly right, but made it look like I took a different angle than I did; the local news station intentionally omitted important facts to drive some humor. The radio program was a live interview, but moved on to the next question so quickly that I didn't have a chance to give much detail. I don't think any of this was avoiding fact-checking, or misrepresenting the truth of my story. But accurate reporting is very hard, and no news outlet gets it right. Ever since then, I take every story I see with a grain of salt. The main point might be what the subject thinks, but at the very least it is missing details and nuance. This leads me to treat the subject of any news story with a lot more compassion than it may seem like they deserve on the surface.